Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Planned Libya Invasion

Planned Libyan Invasion - by Stephen Lendman

In his book, "Winning Modern Wars," General Wesley Clark said Pentagon sources told him two months after 9/11 that war plans were being prepared against Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Somalia, Sudan and Libya. Months earlier, they were finalized against Afghanistan.

Clark added:

"And what about the real sources of terrorists - US allies in the region like Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia? Wasn't it repressive policies of the first, and the corruption and poverty of the second, that were generating many of the angry young men who became terrorists? And what of the radical ideology and direct funding spewing from Saudi Arabia?"

"It seemed that we were being taken into a strategy more likely to make us the enemy - encouraging what could look like a 'clash of civilizations' - not a good strategy for winning the war on terror."

Since insurgency in Libya began, reports of a ground invasion circulated despite no UN authorization and official denials.

On April 1, they gained credence after release of an EUFOR Libya (European Union Force) decision from Brussels, saying:

"The Council has adopted today the decision, underpinning the mandates of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973, establishing an operation, called 'EUFOR Libya' in order to stand ready to support humanitarian assistance in the region, if requested by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)."

In fact, "humanitarian assistance" is code language for aggression, invasion, colonization, and balkanization for profit and imperial control of the entire Mediterranean Basin. Libya, Syria, and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon are the last links to complete it, suggesting after Libya's conquest, Syria and perhaps Lebanon may be next.

The Council's decision established a framework, subject to UN or NATO authorization, NATO meaning Washington's running everything in Libya and the region.

Headquartered in Rome, "Rear Admiral Claudio Gaudiosi has been appointed as (EUFOR) Operation Commander."

"AFRICOM is still very much attached to EUCOM and dependent on (it) in many ways....AFRICOM's role is currently latent or concealed. It is EUCOM....based in Europe (as is AFRICOM), which is currently running the operations against the Libyans."

In other words, invasion is planned, suggested by NATO'S commander. Expect it in days or weeks, masquerading as enhanced "humanitarian intervention."

Nazemroaya added that AFRICOM's "mission is to help secure a new colonial order in Africa that the US and its allies are working to establish. In many ways, this is what (hostilities are) all about."

Washington is very much in charge, planning to carve up Libya and Africa for profit - Britain, France and other key co-belligerents to share the spoils.

Invasion Plans Solidifying

On April 6, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton told the European Parliament that plans for military intervention were being considered. On April 7, the German Press Agency DPA said she wrote UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, "telling him about the EU's readiness to act."

An unnamed official said, "Everybody is aware that something has to be done. You can expect that there will be a mobilization of the international community in the coming days." In other words, planned invasion will use humanitarian intervention as a pretext.

Despite abstaining from UN Resolution 1973 and withdrawing its ships from embargoing Libya, expect German participation if it comes. On April 8, Chancellor Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said German forces would join a "humanitarian" mission if requested by the UN.

According to Defense Ministry spokesman, Christian Dienst, German involvement includes "hav(ing) their boots on the ground in Libya," as well as redeployed ships participating. In other words, Germany wants its share of the spoils like other co-belligerents.

Expect UN Resolution 1973's no-fly zone, including "all necessary measures," to be used as invasion authorization, no matter its lawlessness as a previous article explained, accessed through the following link:

The UN Charter explains under what conditions violence and coercion (by one state against another) are justified. Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlement of international disputes. Article 2(4) prohibits force or its threatened use. And Article 51 allows the "right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member....until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security."

In other words, justifiable self-defense is permissible, not preemptive intervention in another nation's internal affairs, especially on bogus humanitarian grounds, masking imperial aims.

Moreover, under the UN Charter, Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlement of international disputes, not "shock and awe" attacks. Article 2(4), in fact, prohibits force or its threatened use, including no-fly zones that are acts of war.

Further, Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33 absolutely prohibit any unilateral or other external threat or use of force not specifically allowed under Article 51 or otherwise authorized by the Security Council - that may not violate its own Charter. In fact, Washington bullied enough members to do so, planning naked aggression in response.

Gaddafi Accepts Ceasefire Plan

On April 11, A Jazeera headlined, "African leaders in Benghazi for peace talks," saying:

After meeting with Gaddafi on Sunday, they "announced that he accepted a roadmap to peace, but he refused to say whether the deal included his resignation - a key demand for rebels....Jacob Zuma, the South African president, said Tripoli had accepted the African Union's plan," including an immediate halt to hostilities, effective ceasefire monitoring, delivering humanitarian aid, and protecting foreigners.

At the same time, Reuters reported "no let-up in NATO attacks," an official saying, "It does not appear that this indication of a peace deal has any substance at this point." Indeed not, as long as NATO keeps bombing and spurns peace.

On April 11 at 12:02 EDT, Reuters unsurprisingly said:

"Libyan rebels rejected an African Union peace plan on Monday because it did not address their main demand that (Gaddafi) quit and because it proposed reforming a ruling system they want removed."

"The African Union initiative does not include the departure of Gaddafi and his sons from the Libyan political scene, therefore it is outdated. The initiative speaks of reforms from within the Libyan system and that is rejected."

On March 1, the World Tribune.com headlined, "Obama said to back Turkey offer to invade Libya," saying:

Turkey offered to lead a NATO "effort to overthrow (Gaddafi) by invading Libya, but with strings attached. Diplomatic sources said....Prime Minister Erdogan (suggested) a plan in which the Turkish Navy would send ships and troops to Libya," wanting EU membership in return.

According to an unnamed Western diplomat, "It was not clear if Turkey could actually do the job, but Erdogan did make this offer."

Unnamed sources said Obama and Saudi Arabia endorsed the plan. Brussels, however, appeared cold, including French President Sarkozy. He and other EU leaders "regarded Erdogan's plan as a means to exploit the revolt in Libya."

The same unnamed diplomat said, "The feeling is that Turkey is looking to become the Ottoman Empire, and most of Europe does not want to go through that history again." Also at issue is Turkish support for Iran, tensions with Israel, EU reluctance to include an Islamic member country, (even a secular one), and having another spoils of war partner, meaning less to key co-belligerents wanting them all.

A Final Comment

As part of its anti-Gaddafi disinformation campaign, a New York Times CJ Chivers "At War: Notes From the Front Lines" blog features regular commentaries, including an April 10 one headlined, "Libyan Rebels Take Risks With Makeshift Arms," saying:

Rebel weapons "are, in a word, a sight. They are also a fright....In truth, the men who fire them have little idea of how far these (makeshift) rockets fly, a limited ability to change their elevation, and....often have no ability to traverse them left or right."

One fighter complained that "we have almost no other weapons, and Qaddafi has all the lethal weapons available in the world."

Administration officials, including Secretary of State Clinton, said no decision had been made, but Washington "had a right to do so, despite an arms embargo...."

Obama told NBC News, "I'm not ruling it out, but I'm also not ruling it in. We're still making an assessment...." He also pledged no US ground troops.

Concern over the lightly armed rebels prompted an unnamed European diplomat to say rebels should be more heavily armed. "We strongly believe that it should happen."

Even if concerns are resolved, Pentagon "officials said it was unclear to them how an effort to arm rebels would be carried out. They said the arms most likely to be of use were relatively light....not especially sophisticated, (and it would take) months, if not years, of on-the-ground training" to instruct rebels on their use.

On April 10, Global Research.ca reported:

"Libyan rebels from the Feb. 17 armed coup attempt to overthrow the Libyan government had brand new weapons since the first day of the uprising. These weapons were of non-Libyan origin and had already been secretly imported into Libya in advance of Feb. 17."

The rebels "appear to be paid mercenaries and Libyan expatriates," as well as students and Al Qaeda elements, a CIA/MI 6-enlisted alliance to oust Gaddafi.

Despite genuine internal opposition to his rule, the current uprising was externally manufactured, not spontaneous for democratic change as major media reports suggest, including BBC and Al Jazeera backing rebels, abandoning honest journalism and independent reporting in the process.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.